The High Court dismissed Kevin Kielthy’s claims for damages over errors in the registration details for his fishing vessel and the handling of a proposed sea dumping permit.
In a judgment delivered on 5 February 2019, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor found that the incorrect engine details on certificates and fishing licences did not cause Mr Kielthy to stop fishing, and that he had not established any loss attributable to those errors. The court also rejected his claims that the Department had negligently misrepresented the prospect of a permit or created a legitimate expectation that one would be granted.
Mr Kielthy’s vessel, the MFV Morgensonne, had incorrect engine details on registration documents issued in 2000. The records showed the correct engine power was 373 kilowatts, while some documents carried a lower figure. The register was corrected in July 2005.
Mr Kielthy argued that he could not legally fish without a correct registration certificate and feared the vessel could be stopped or impounded. He sought €257,000 for lost earnings from July 2002 to July 2005, as well as €250,000 connected with a decommissioning grant. The defendants disputed that the paperwork error explained his lack of fishing activity, arguing that scallop fishing had become commercially unviable for the vessel and that he had fished on a limited basis.
The judge found that Mr Kielthy’s decision not to fish between July 2000 and December 2005 was not caused by fear of fishing illegally because of the engine details. The court said the fishing authorisation depended on the licence and was not dependent on the engine capacity being correctly recorded. It found no evidence of negligence in entering the incorrect engine details and no established loss from the certificates or intermittent licence errors.
On the dumping at sea claim, Mr Kielthy said he had refitted the vessel in reliance on departmental guidelines and meetings about permit applications. The defendants disputed the amount spent and argued that a permit would have been unlawful under EU law. The court found there had been no clear or unequivocal promise that a permit would be granted, and that EU law prevented the Department from granting one. It also held that the Department’s limited engagement did not give rise to a duty of care.
The court further found that the claimed losses were speculative and dismissed all claims. The judgment did not award damages to Mr Kielthy.